The revolution will not be televised

Trust in journalism seems to be at an all-time low. We are not popular people. Check Twitter – the language directed at the media in Scotland is often more colourful than one of Jon Snow’s ties.

It is a difficult time for the industry, in terms of both trust and finance. But while the challenges facing print media in the internet age are well known, broadcasters too are under pressure.

Many nationalists are still deeply unhappy at how the BBC covered the referendum, and with the Tory Government still perceived as deeply hostile to it, the corporation has a precarious balancing act to manage.

RELATED CONTENT

Trip to the Labour conference

Parliamentary sketch: MPs talk about hedgehogs

It is hard to justify giving airlines a tax break while food banks remain in Scotland

Channel 4, meanwhile, has its own troubles. Founded in 1982, the broadcaster is commercially funded and publicly owned. But in recent weeks, there have been suggestions that could change.

Talking in PMQs, David Cameron said: “I want to make sure that Channel 4 has a strong and secure future and I think it’s right to look at all of the options, including to see whether private investment into Channel 4 could help safeguard it for the future.

“Let’s have a look at all the options. Let’s not close our minds, like some on the opposition front bench who think that private is bad and public is good. Let’s have a proper look at how we can make sure this great channel goes on being great for many years to come.”

Of course that does not mean Channel 4 will be privatised. But a glance at the record of Cameron’s government so far will not give supporters of the channel’s current model much hope.

David Abraham, Channel 4’s chief executive, recently estimated that privatisation would mean the broadcaster needing to redirect £200m per year out of its programming budget and into shareholder profits.

That would inevitably have an effect on its programming, with the channel’s flagship news show at risk. As Jon Snow put it in an interview with the Telegraph: “They would not be able to run to the costs of doing what we do. I don’t think a commercial entity could afford a one hour news bulletin, which doesn’t exist in any other English-speaking country on earth.”

And so it is not just newspapers that are going through a period of change.

Part of the reason is that journalism is not a profession, it is a trade. And even as trades go it is uniquely fluid.

I learned this the hard way. After being inspired by the rise of new media, I recently attempted to become a ‘Citizen plumber’.

Driven by anger at mainstream plumbing conspiracies, I started my own new plumbing approach. I even made a blog, called Wings Over Plumbing, aimed at highlighting the shoddy work, biased piping and conspiratorial lies propagated by conformist plumbers.

I exploded my boiler shortly afterwards – a sure sign the establishment was running scared.

But it didn’t take off. Some industries are easier for non-professionals to challenge than others.

In fact, apart from the way Uber has taken on the taxi trade, it is hard to think of an industry that has been challenged in the way print media has.

But that does not apply to broadcast, or at least not to the same extent. Anyone can set up a blog for free and start reporting, but to take on a broadcaster like Channel 4 would require sizeable resources.

New media plays a key role in challenging the mainstream press. That is healthy. But the same is not true of broadcast. Lose Channel 4’s public service edge and no one will step in to replace it. It will just be lost.

If the revolution is not covered by the press, someone will blog about it. But lose quality broadcasters, and it will not be televised.